Afghanistan and the Maoist-Islamic Talibans

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at columbia.edu
Fri Oct 4 12:19:36 MDT 1996


Rolf, goddamn it, don't you see what your problem is? This seems to be
about the nineteenth screed you've written today on Najibullah and I can't
distinguish one from another. You have to adjust to the idea that this
kind of behavior will be strictly verboten on the new moderated list.
Nineteen posts a day on Najibullah is likely to frighten any sane person
away. Go over to Hans' unmoderated list when it is launched and post
nineteen times about Najibullah, god bless you. You remind me of a lunatic
uncle in a Gothic novel who is kept locked up in the attic. Once a day,
the new houseservant brings food and places it within a narrow slot in the
door. From within, in between the sounds of ravenous chomping, she hears,
"Najibullah, Plutonium, Najibullah, Plutonium."



On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Rolf Martens wrote:

> >Wei Enlin,
> >
> >You wrote (and why the old type trancription "En Lin",
> >btw? - since 1979, the other way is used in China, as
> >prepared in Mao's time):
> >
> >>Greetings from Wei En Lin to all comrades:
> >
> >>
> >>Doctrinaire and Sincere Marxists feel compelled to mourn the death of
> >>Najibullah.
> >
> >By no means. Only doctrinaire revisionists and social-imperialists
> >would do so. The Soviet social-imprialists invaded one country
> >here in Europe, too, remember, Checkoslovakia in 1968. Did Mao
> >Zedong *applaud* this? On the contrary, he sharply condemned it.
> >
> >
> >>Reality is complex and messy.  Najibullah did advance the cause of women
> >>in Afghanistan, but his heavy-handed Stalinist  approach to politics
> >>revealed him to be a tool of Soviet "social-imperialism."
> >
> >NOT "Stalinist". Despite everything, Stalin in the main COMBATED
> >revisionism. Tool of social-imperialism WITHOUT QUOTES he was.
>
> [NOTE, when seeing what I wrote here: I mean Najubullah, *not*
> Stalin, of course, by that last sentence. - RM]
> >>
> >>Marx probably would have supported the USSR's effective annexation of
> >>Afghanistan, as he supported Imperialist France's conquest of Tunisia
> >>and the US conquest of Mexican territories--these are cases of the
> >>oppressor being more progressive than the indigenous feudal ruling
> >>classes.
> >
> >Marx would NEVER have done so. There *are* some cases of the oppressor
> >being more progressive, so far correct. This by no means was the case
> >with aggressive social-imperialism, a mainstay of reaction.
> >>
> >>But the Taliban mix together Islam and Maoist ideology.  They have
> >>tremendous grassroots support.
> >
> >Do the Taliban in some way say they're for Mao Zedong? That undoubtedly
> >would be a fake.
> >
> >>Most unfortunate is the bare fact that a grassroots revolutionary
> >>political movement could not succeed at this stage if it did not combine
> >>feudal ideology with populist socialism.
> >>
> >>The same difficulty exists throughout the Islamic World.
> >>
> >>
> >>Wei En Lin.
> >
> >So the US imperialists, for instance, should be welcomed to make
> >some aggression in the Middle East? I don't think that you're
> >the worst one among those who, indirectly, seem to be advocating
> >this, among the friends on this list of the Soviet social-imperialists,
> >but this would follow from your logic too, wouldn't it?
> >
> >Rolf M.
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list